Abstract
AbstractThis paper focuses on Schellenberg’s Capacitism about Phenomenal Evidence, according to which if one is in a phenomenal state constituted by employing perceptual capacities, then one is in a phenomenal state that provides phenomenal evidence. This view offers an attractive explanation of why perceptual experience provides phenomenal evidence, and avoids difficulties faced by its contemporary alternatives. However, in spite of the attractions of this view, it is subject to what I call “the alien experience problem”: some alien experiences (e.g. clairvoyant experience) are constituted by employing perceptual capacities, but they do not provide phenomenal evidence. This point is illustrated by a counterexample which is similar to, but also different in some important respects from, Bonjour’s famous clairvoyant Norman example. At the end of the paper, I sketch a restricted version of Capacitism about Phenomenal Evidence by putting some etiological constraint on the perceptual capacities employed.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference39 articles.
1. Bergmann, M. (2006). Justification without awareness. Oxford University Press.
2. Bigelow, J., & Pargetter, R. (1987). Functions. Journal of Philosophy, 84, 181–196.
3. Boorse, C. (2002). A rebuttal on functions. In A. Ariew R. Cummins, M. Perlman (eds.), Functions: New Essays in the Philosophy of Biology (pp. 63–112). Oxford University Press.
4. Byrne, A. (2014). Perception and evidence. Philosophical Studies, 170(1), 101–113.
5. Chudnoff, E. (2011). The nature of intuitive justification. Philosophical Studies, 153, 313–333.